Nielsen Ratings in the Age of the Internet

alphadogg writes "If everyone started watching '24' or 'CSI' on video iPods or streamed over the Internet — instead of on TV in their living rooms — these top-rated shows would probably go the way of 'Cop Rock.' This is because Nielsen Media Research cannot collect data about what people watch on handheld video-viewing gadgets or from PCs streaming network TV shows. While Nielsen estimates around 90% of TV viewing still happens in homes, it's this burgeoning 10% that TV networks and advertisers are desperate to delve into." Note that this story is obnoxiously spanning 6 pages. For a publication named "Network World" you'd think they'd know better.

Comments

What a load of...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a show was a huge hit on iTunes, and pulled in poor ratings on TV, do you think the TV studio would really say pull the plug? No. They'd have the metric of the fact the TV show is pulling in a ton of money, and they'd use that as reason to keep the show on.

Look at other shows that have done well on DVD. There are several examples of DVD sales leading to TV returns (so they can then sell more DVDs) and movies.

Nielsen ratings useless

[Cyphertube]

I've talked to a few people who've been involved in Nielsen ratings, and these were hardly normal people. One family basically only ever watched Charmed on TNT, and then an occasional news broadcast. They really need to start pulling more automated information.

In my home, I have Dish Network, with a dual-tuner DVR. So, I often end up watching two shows from the same timeslot. Yeah, I probably skip through commercials, but I doubt they are getting ratings for both shows at the same time.

The other thing with Nielsen is a failure to get really good demographics. I mean, if Nielsen had a clue, they wouldn't have yanked Family Guy and have to bring it back. They always look at numbers for total viewers, instead of demographics and loyalty. Some of the smaller shows that get yanked could actually charge more for better targetted advertising.

Re:Nielsen ratings useless

[HappySqurriel]

While I agree that there are flaws with the demographics I don't think that is what lead to the cancellation of Family Guy. (And a number of other cancellations of popular shows) Shows like that are cancelled due to the networks quest for the "next big show" Everyone wants to have the next Friends or similarly popular show. Due to this the networks will cancel good shows and put that money into a few new and probably crappy new shows in hopes that one of them will take off and be that next big thing. Family Guy came back because Fox failed miserably at finding that next big thing and fell back to a show that is a solid money show even if it isn't a huge cash cow.

I could be wrong, being that I don't watch much Television, but isn't Family Guy a Fox show? The one thing I know about Fox is that they will pull a show, that may be critically acclaimed or have a growing following, in order to replace it with a clone of a popular show.

Something I don't think is taken into consideration with Nielsen ratings, or is considered by advertizers, is that not all viewership demographics are created equally. Maybe it is just my experience, but I have found that the people who really liked shows like Arrested Development were the type of people who don't watch much television at all; they're the same type of person who finds most comedy shows reasonably boring and predictable. This means that, as an advertizer, you have dozens of opportunities in the week to sell your product to the TV obsessed 'Jerry Springer' watchers but only a handful of opportunities to sell your product to someone who watches 'Arrested Development'; the rarety of opportunity should make those spots more valuble per person watching.

I recongize that it doesn't work that way, nor will it ever work that way, but the current system favours those who watch more television and have already been bombarded with advertizing.

Re:How about 'network TV'

[PoiBoy]

Can't the cable company tell what each household is watching, especially with digital cable? It seems to me that a Neilson box keeping track of viewing habits is outmoded, at least for cable-subscribing households. Don't the cable companies have the wherewithall to grab the data automatically?

Re:We might switch

[macemoneta]

"If the shows were available online for purchase, and if they were offered in a format that was conducive to what we want (ie no DRM), we would consider purchasing them. The total cost should still be less than our DirecTV."

And that's exactly where the content creators are failing.

At a charge of $1.99/episode, the 21 programs my wife and I watch in a week would cost $84/month. Instead, I pay for minimal basic cable, $15/month, which gives me DRM-free content (with skipable advertising). To be competative, the cost per episode would need to be 20 cents each. There is no way that the content providers would even consider that.

Part of the problem is the unrealistic cost of music. Because people are bad at math, and are willing to pay 99 cents a track instead of 10 cents - a more realistic value - TV content providers set the bar higher.

Until music is 10 cents and TV shows are 20 cents, this battle will continue. While the "horse and buggy" industries laments the changing business model, people will bypass the system (download illegally uploaded content), costing the content providers increasing lost revenue. At the same time, the loss of statistical data will cause the media providers to make bad decisions, hurting their revenue even more. The more they fight reality, the more it costs them.

Re:Real quick way to get viewing counts

[Karlt1]

According to this site:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-2 0060124Apple55CentsAndAdvertising.html

The network/production company makes $1.44 cents per $1.99 download for a tv show. This compares to an "estimated 57 cents in advertising revenue per user generated under the current model." They make over 2.5x as much per download as they do from television.